Itxa/3719/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,City-Iii, Bombay v. M/S Dwarkaprasad Anilkumar Pvt.ltd
High Court
21 Aug 2006 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/3719/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,City-Iii, Bombay v. M/S Dwarkaprasad Anilkumar Pvt.ltd
Date of order
21 Aug 2006
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/3719/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,City-Iii, Bombay v. M/S Dwarkaprasad Anilkumar Pvt.ltd, the High Court (2006) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O.O.C.J.
Income Tax Appeal (L) No.163 of 2003
The Commissioner of Income Tax-3. .. Appellant
v/s.
M/s.Dwarkaprasad Anilkumar
Pvt. Ltd. .. .. Respondent
Mr.A.M. Kotangale for appellant.
----
CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 21t August 2006
P.C. :
1. Heard Mr.Kontangale in support of this
Appeal.
2. The question of law sought to be raised is
principally because, according to the Revenue,
there is a liability of sum of Rs.23,40,000/- on
the respondent-Assessee. However, from the order
of the Tribunal, it is seen that the Assessee has
explained the source of investments. The Assessee
is a Company dealing in investments and it was
alleged that the shares subscription shown by the
Assessee to the shareholders was false. As
against that, the Assessee produced the evidence
of 9 shareholders out of 11. They were tax payers
and their Files were given as also their
identification was established. The Tribunal has,
-2-
therefore, held that there was no material to hold
that the shares subscription shown by the
shareholders was, in any way, false. Since this
is a determination on facts, in our view, no
question of law as such arises. Appeal is
dismissed.
(H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
(H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
(H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.